CHANDRASEKHAR SINGH & ORS. versus SIYA RAM SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 1 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 26-09-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASWANT SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1\ 
y 
• 
947 
CHANDRASEKHAR SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
SIYA RAM SINGH & ORS. 
September 26, 1978 
[JASWANT SINGH, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. 0. KOSHAL, JJ.] 
Code of Criniinal Procedure, 1898-Section 
146-The 
fin<;ing 
of 
the 
Civil Court under this Section as to possession is final. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, Sections 435 & 439-Revisional powers 
of the High Court-High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the 
Ci11il Court in a proceeding under s. 146 Criminal P.C.-Con~·tiuaion of India, 
1950 Art. 2~7-Power of superintendence cf the High Court is limited. 
In the 145 proceedings converted from the 144 proceedings on a. police 
eport dated 29-2-1968, both the appellants-second parties and the respondents 
first parties claimed title as well as possession of the disputed land with them 
nd filed in support documents and several affidavits. 
The magistrate referred 
he rnatte1. to the Civil Court for a fiilding on the issue. On a consideration of 
he materials placed before him, the munsif by an order dated 22-12-1975 found 
that the appellants-scccnd parties were in possession. 
The magistri.lti! passed 
an order dated 7-4-1976 in accordance with the findings on the issue as to 
possession by the munsif holding that the appellants-second parties were in 
possession. 
The High Court in revision under sections 435 and 439 of. the 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, was of the view that the finding as to possession 
on th~ basis of documents alone without mpplying the mind to the affidavits 
cannot be sustained and set aside the orders passed by the magistrate. 
AJiowing the appeal by special leave, the Court. 
IlELD: (1) The finding of the Civil Court given under s. 146(18) of the 
1898 Code regarding possession is final and cannot be challenged by way of 
ai)peal. review or revision, though the Civil Court acting under section J 46 
(IA) and (IB) of the Criminal Procedure Code has not ceased to be ~ Civil 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Court. 
Neither an appeal nor a revision lies agairut the finding of the Civil 
F 
Court in the reference because of the express provision in section 146(10) and 
not because the proceeding before the Civil Court is not a civil proceeding 
[95IC-D, EJ 
Sra!e of U.P. v. Ra1nachandra Aggarwal [1966J Supp. SCR 393 followed. 
(2) An order passed by the magistrate in conformity with the decision of 
the Civil Court ca~not be challenged under sections 435 and 439 of the code. 
Sub-section (lB) requires the magistrate on receipt of the findings by the Civil 
Court to proceed and dispose of the proceedings under s. 145 in conformity 
with the decision of the Civil Court. If the order of the magistrate is in con-
formity with the decision of the Civil Court, the magistrate will be complying 
with the requirements of section 146 (lB) and the order thus passed ca-nnotDC 
challenged. It win of course be open to the High Court to interfere if the order 
of the magistrate is not in conformity with the· finding of the Civil Court. When 
the order of the magistrate is in conformity with the finding of the Civil Court, 
the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere under sections 435 and 439 of 
G 
II 
948 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1979] 1 s.c.R. 
A 
the Criminal Procedure Code. 
When there is an express provision namely, sub-
section (lD) in the Code against the challenge of the finding of the C1vil Court,. 
other provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be relied on for doing. 
what is expressly prohibite<I. 
[952A-D] 
B 
c 
(3) The powers conferred on the High Court under Art. 227 of the Con-
stitution =t in any way be curtailed by the provisions of the Criminal Pro-
cedure Code. 
Therefore the powers of the High Court under Art. 227 of the 
Consti~uti0'.11 can be invoked iri spite of the restrictions placed under s. 146 {TD> 
of the Criminal Procedure Code. [952D-E] 
But the scope of interfere\lce by the High Court under Art 227 is restricted 
to seeing that the tribunal functions within its limits of authority. 
The· power 
of superintendence cannot be invoked to correct the error of fact which only a 
superior Court can do in exercise of its statutory power as the Court of appeal 
and that the High Court cannot in exercise of its J\Jrisdiction under Art. 227 
convert itself into a Court of appeal. 
[952F, G, 953A] 
Wtlryarn Singh v. An1ar Nath [1954] SCR 56; 1\'agendra Nath Bora & Anr. 
v. Commissioner of Hills Division, and Appeals, Assam & Ors., 
[1958] 
SCR 
1240; Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.